User talk:Lakenheath72
Welcome to Memory Alpha, ! I've noticed that you've already made some contributions to our database – thanks for your edit to the "Aquiel (episode)" page! We all hope that you'll enjoy our activities here and decide to join our community. If you'd like to learn more about working with the nuts and bolts of Memory Alpha, I have a few links that you might want to check out: * Our policies and guidelines provides links to inform you on what is appropriate for Memory Alpha and what is not. Particular items of note are the and policies, the , our , , and guidelines for proper . * includes a basic tutorial about how to use our special wikitext code here on Memory Alpha. * Naming conventions provides guidelines on how to name a new page that you may want to create. * The Manual of Style is an overview of the basic guidelines for how to format and style your articles. * is a list of suggestions that can help you put together an article that might end up on our Featured Articles list someday. * See the user projects page for current projects of our archivists, or help us to reduce the number of stubs. * Look up past changes you have made in your log. * Keep track of your favorite Memory Alpha articles through your very own . * Create your own user page and be contacted on this page, your . One other suggestion: if you're going to make comments on talk pages or make other sorts of comments, please be sure to sign them with four tildes (~~~~) to paste in your user name and the date/time of the comment. If you have any questions, please feel free to post them in our Ten Forward community page. Thanks, and once again, welcome to Memory Alpha! Renegade54 (talk) 04:52, December 30, 2014 (UTC) :The above named user is the most currently available administrator to contribute to Memory Alpha; their signature was automatically added by User:Wikia. If you have any immediate questions or concerns, you may contact that user through their talk page. Some things Regarding your recent work, there are some things you are doing that need to be corrected: *First and foremost, information that has been retconed is not to be removed from pages, but placed in a background note, see MA:CANON and MA:RESOURCE. *Second, stop assuming names on dedication plaques are Human just because the production person they are named after is. Only 22nd century Starfleet personal can be assumed to be Human. *Third, pages that contain information that only comes from an alternate timeline use not , and the information doesn't need to italicized. *Fourth, even when information should be italicized, the citation is not in-universe and should not be italicized as well. Otherwise, keep up the good work. :) - (on an unsecure connection) 16:10, December 31, 2014 (UTC) in v. of Replacing "in" with "of" in the opening sentence for 22nd century personel is inproper syntax. They aren't from the 22nd century as a point of origin, as in "Jesus of Nazareth", they were seen in 22nd century. Please stop changing this. - User47 (talk) 06:38, January 5, 2015 (UTC) Transcripts Transcripts of text seen in an image belong on the rather than article talk pages. See File:Type 7 shuttlecraft LCARS.jpg, File:Expeditions from Sol System, 2123–2190 remastered.jpg, and (the most relevant based on your recent work) File:Starfleet memorandum, page 1.png for examples on how this is done. - User47 (talk) 16:33, January 16, 2015 (UTC) My two cents Hi, would you mind if I give a few thought regarding the Earth starfleet agencies articles you've recently created? *First, it would be usefull if these could be added to the list of Starfleet subdivisions at Starfleet. There's also a template, Template:Branches of Starfleet, that is highly relevant. I think these new divisions should both be added to the template, and the template to the new pages. *Secondly, and this is more subjective, but you refer to all these divisions as "agencies". I feel agency implies a very high degree of independence, an organisation on its own, so it isn't the first word I would think of for a subdivision of starfleet. Were they, or one of them, identified as agencies on the plaque? If not, and again this is very subjective and it's up to you, but if not maybe a vague noncommittal term like for example "group within Starfleet" or something may be better. (feel free to think up something better) Iirc all this is inspired by NASA specialties that I'm guessing NASA wouldn't describe as agencies within it's organisation. Hope you don't mind me sticking my nose in your work, it's just a few thoughts I had. Oh and also in a completely unrelated matter, I've posted a question on an article you've created, here. -- Capricorn (talk) 09:38, January 24, 2015 (UTC) :What is the reason for the series of edits you have made today? 31dot (talk) 23:03, January 24, 2015 (UTC) ::Can you be more specific? If you are referring to me changing the category from Humans to Individuals and dropping references to them being Human, it is because I have been advised by Archduk3 that, Second, stop assuming names on dedication plaques are Human just because the production person they are named after is. Only 22nd century Starfleet personal can be assumed to be Human.Lakenheath72 (talk) 08:03, January 25, 2015 (UTC) :That's fine, I just wasn't sure why.31dot (talk) 11:58, January 25, 2015 (UTC) Civilian articles Why are you creating these civilian articles? Starfleet personnel can travel on Federations NAR-registered commercial transports. There is no reason to assume that there are two individuals with the same name in most of those cases. --Pseudohuman (talk) 23:34, January 27, 2015 (UTC) :I don't know if they are Starfleet personnel. If I do what I think you are saying should be done, then I am speculating. As for two individuals with the same name, there is no reason to think that the Star Trek universe is immune to this cultural idiosyncrasy. Civilian appellation is a compromise between what is known and what is not known.Lakenheath72 (talk) 15:12, January 28, 2015 (UTC) ::Using the name of the ship to disambiguate might be a more neutral solution. -- Capricorn (talk) 15:52, January 30, 2015 (UTC) The Cage Map Stop. - User47 (talk) 03:36, January 30, 2015 (UTC) This wasn't a suggestion, you are circumventing the deletion policy by adding material previously "deleted." The consensus must be changed first. Also, you've going to have to explain where the information you've added to Osama Bin Laden was in the episode, because if it's not it shouldn't have been added. - 06:44, February 7, 2015 (UTC) "would" construct Please avoid its use. "Bob would marry Clare" is poor grammatical use and should be "Bob married Clare". -- sulfur (talk) 22:33, January 31, 2015 (UTC) TXX-R Just wanted to make sure you're only using this on information that comes from a remastered version of an episode, as opposed to information that is present in both versions, in which case the standard citation template should be the one used. Not that I've noticed anything really, I'm just not sure if that bit of usage instruction has been written down yet. - 03:50, February 3, 2015 (UTC) Block For your last round of name calling, and general disruptive posts, I have blocked you for 72 hours; further name calling will result in longer blocks. --31dot (talk) 02:24, February 9, 2015 (UTC) Summary field and "show preview" Hey. When editing an article please fill in the "summary field". This makes it a lot easier to see why an edit was done, especially when you're removing large portions of an article. You can also use the show preview button to see how the article looks like after you made an edit. This prevents from editing an article several times in a short time just for "cosmetic typos". Thanks. Tom (talk) 23:33, February 12, 2015 (UTC) :Thanks for noticing this post. Just to make sure: The summary field is more than adequate like you did it here. You don't need to put these long "summary of changes" on the talk page. Tom (talk) 08:28, February 13, 2015 (UTC) ::Also I think it's a bit misguided in that anyone who can use the history tab can see all the changes in more detail then an edit summary might provide; there's less of a need to construct a complete list of changes then there is a need to explain why you feel those changes have to be made. And even in the detailed talk page summary's, that was often explained but just as often not, or not clearly. -- Capricorn (talk) 13:55, February 13, 2015 (UTC) Italy Is it perchance possible you've made an error in this edit? -- Capricorn (talk) 12:35, February 15, 2015 (UTC) Also, regarding your edit to Laura Danly: It's great that you've established that the real Dandly was definetly the source of the name, but could you please add your source for that information too? -- Capricorn (talk) 01:23, February 23, 2015 (UTC)